The Commie behind every corner goofballs.

[jbander]

We will keep this simple for obvious reasons. There is no communism or socialism in the democratic party or anywhere in this country , never met one in my lifetime... Every single right wing wacko has their own personal definition of socialism and communism, You don't get to define it for you personal hatred, there is already a definition for both of them .

There is one Tenet that is the prime controlling factor in both Communism and socialism. Without which there is no socialism or communism. I have one simple question for you (I promised to keep this simple) when was the last time anyone has ever come up to you in this country and said "you know I think it would be a good idea that all businesses should be owned and run by the government. "

You goofballs throw the Socialism/communism stupidity around all the time but you have no clue what your talking about ever. The prime tenet of socialism/communism is The means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. , without that there is zero communism or socialism and we can go one further step then that .Go to the real definition of communism or socialism in the encyclopedia and take all the main tenets of socialism/communism. , bring them back and with them show us where and who and why you think any aspect of the main tenets of Socialism/communism is ever supported in this country other then by a trickle of people and not as you have it by being half this countries population. This Commie behind every corner routine is a idiots comment.

 

[soylentgreen]

We will keep this simple for obvious reasons. There is no communism or socialism in the democratic party or anywhere in this country , never met one in my lifetime... Every single right wing wacko has their own personal definition of socialism and communism, You don't get to define it for you personal hatred, there is already a definition for both of them .

There is one Tenet that is the prime controlling factor in both Communism and socialism. Without which there is no socialism or communism. I have one simple question for you (I promised to keep this simple) when was the last time anyone has ever come up to you in this country and said "you know I think it would be a good idea that all businesses should be owned and run by the government. "

You goofballs throw the Socialism/communism stupidity around all the time but you have no clue what your talking about ever. The prime tenet of socialism/communism is The means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. , without that there is zero communism or socialism and we can go one further step then that .Go to the real definition of communism or socialism in the encyclopedia and take all the main tenets of socialism/communism. , bring them back and with them show us where and who and why you think any aspect of the main tenets of Socialism/communism is ever supported in this country other then by a trickle of people and not as you have it by being half this countries population. This Commie behind every corner routine is a idiots comment.

Actually your commentary of communism is not that much different from what you complain is an idiot comment.

Your miss quoting of communism from an encyclopedia is nothing more than the dishonest practice of quote mining.

Communism does not actually say that the government should have control that would make it no different from capitalism where the wealthy have control.

What it does say is the the workers should have control of the government. A very different concept from your idiot comment.

And if you wish to use cliches from a philosophy at least try to make the effort of learning what they actually are instead of making up your own rather silly version. e.g.

A fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

 

[truthatallcost]

We will keep this simple for obvious reasons. There is no communism or socialism in the democratic party or anywhere in this country , never met one in my lifetime... Every single right wing wacko has their own personal definition of socialism and communism, You don't get to define it for you personal hatred, there is already a definition for both of them .

There is one Tenet that is the prime controlling factor in both Communism and socialism. Without which there is no socialism or communism. I have one simple question for you (I promised to keep this simple) when was the last time anyone has ever come up to you in this country and said "you know I think it would be a good idea that all businesses should be owned and run by the government. "

You goofballs throw the Socialism/communism stupidity around all the time but you have no clue what your talking about ever. The prime tenet of socialism/communism is The means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. , without that there is zero communism or socialism and we can go one further step then that .Go to the real definition of communism or socialism in the encyclopedia and take all the main tenets of socialism/communism. , bring them back and with them show us where and who and why you think any aspect of the main tenets of Socialism/communism is ever supported in this country other then by a trickle of people and not as you have it by being half this countries population. This Commie behind every corner routine is a idiots comment.

Familiar elements of communism do in fact saturate the American left, but largely on a subconscious level. Government doesn't own the means of production in the USA, rather the largest companies own government. This exists on an international level, where some of the companies influencing American policies aren't even American companies, and many American companies that wield power in D.C. run the actual production side of their business outside the country, in China or India for example.

Communisms' legacy still influences the American left in the collectivism that the left employs in order to categorize people based upon identity and an encouraged sense of victimhood, which then becomes a voting bloc. The left's proletariat is comprised of anyone who has decided that society has wronged them based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. And the modern bourgeois which must be punished and ultimately eliminated is the white middle and working class that voted for Trump in 2016.

 

[jbander]

Actually your commentary of communism is not that much different from what you complain is an idiot comment.

Your miss quoting of communism from an encyclopedia is nothing more than the dishonest practice of quote mining.

Communism does not actually say that the government should have control that would make it no different from capitalism where the wealthy have control.

What it does say is the the workers should have control of the government. A very different concept from your idiot comment.

And if you wish to use cliches from a philosophy at least try to make the effort of learning what they actually are instead of making up your own rather silly version. e.g.

Its defined in all manners all meaning the same thing , the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, -the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the workers- the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. Try harder ace. I had to come back there is one more definition all meaning the exact same thing The 4th one is "the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state" we can't forget that one

 

[jbander]

Familiar elements of communism do in fact saturate the American left, but largely on a subconscious level. Government doesn't own the means of production in the USA, rather the largest companies own government. This exists on an international level, where some of the companies influencing American policies aren't even American companies, and many American companies that wield power in D.C. run the actual production side of their business outside the country, in China or India for example.

Communisms' legacy still influences the American left in the collectivism that the left employs in order to categorize people based upon identity and an encouraged sense of victimhood, which then becomes a voting bloc. The left's proletariat is comprised of anyone who has decided that society has wronged them based upon race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. And the modern bourgeois which must be punished and ultimately eliminated is the white middle and working class that voted for Trump in 2016.

You don't get your own definition of socialism and Communism, they already have a definition. The right does the same exact thing with the second amendment , each and every one of them have their own definition of the second amendment. There are just a short list of the main tenets of socialism and communism , but this one" the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the Government" has to exist for there to be socialism or communism, that's just a fact. When was the last time someone came up to you and said "you know I think it would be a good idea if all business was owned and run by the government and that they also should be the only one charged with the sale of that production. No one gets there own definition of socialism and communism . Only the hate group they call a party think that everyone of them can have their own definition, so they can use it the way they want to. Like being made idiots by throwing the commie around every corner at the progressives,

 

[Good4Nothin]

I agree with the OP's definition of communism and socialism. It might sound nice to say everything should be owned by the people, by the workers. But that can only be accomplished by the central government, supposedly doing the will of the people who elected it.

It might sound good, but it isn't good. The central government must confiscate all private property by force. And then, since the people have lost all their possessions and money, they are powerless. The government, the communist party, becomes all-powerful.

And then the government makes a mess of trying to manage the entire economy. Central planning does not work.

The system appears to work for a while, because it has all that confiscated wealth. But the central planners have no way to create a genuine economic system, so it slowly grinds to a halt as the confiscated wealth runs out.

But the OP doesn't seem to understand that many or most leftists sympathize with socialism.

 

[apdst]

We will keep this simple for obvious reasons. There is no communism or socialism in the democratic party or anywhere in this country , never met one in my lifetime... Every single right wing wacko has their own personal definition of socialism and communism, You don't get to define it for you personal hatred, there is already a definition for both of them .

There is one Tenet that is the prime controlling factor in both Communism and socialism. Without which there is no socialism or communism. I have one simple question for you (I promised to keep this simple) when was the last time anyone has ever come up to you in this country and said "you know I think it would be a good idea that all businesses should be owned and run by the government. "

You goofballs throw the Socialism/communism stupidity around all the time but you have no clue what your talking about ever. The prime tenet of socialism/communism is The means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. , without that there is zero communism or socialism and we can go one further step then that .Go to the real definition of communism or socialism in the encyclopedia and take all the main tenets of socialism/communism. , bring them back and with them show us where and who and why you think any aspect of the main tenets of Socialism/communism is ever supported in this country other then by a trickle of people and not as you have it by being half this countries population. This Commie behind every corner routine is a idiots comment.

The Soviet Union had privately owned businesses. You didn't know that? And you call people goofballs?

 

[apdst]

Its defined in all manners all meaning the same thing , the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, -the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the workers- the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. Try harder ace. I had to come back there is one more definition all meaning the exact same thing The 4th one is "the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state" we can't forget that one

Do you agree with "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs"?

 

[jbander]

I agree with the OP's definition of communism and socialism. It might sound nice to say everything should be owned by the people, by the workers. But that can only be accomplished by the central government, supposedly doing the will of the people who elected it.

It might sound good, but it isn't good. The central government must confiscate all private property by force. And then, since the people have lost all their possessions and money, they are powerless. The government, the communist party, becomes all-powerful.

And then the government makes a mess of trying to manage the entire economy. Central planning does not work.

The system appears to work for a while, because it has all that confiscated wealth. But the central planners have no way to create a genuine economic system, so it slowly grinds to a halt as the confiscated wealth runs out.

But the OP doesn't seem to understand that many or most leftists sympathize with socialism.

The reason why capitalism is the only way is that it offers the promise of the potential to get ahead, which the right has literally destroyed for the last 40 year(think 1981) , all the new wealth of this country , which has been massive ,has all gone to the top with the Trickle down lie. No one else has gained a dime , in fact everyone except the golden few have not gained anything but in that same 40 years everyone except the wealthy have increased their debt load massively. This is what the right wants for this country, The truth is this is the way the right wants this country to operate. They want it all to trickle up to the top, not just the massive new wealth but the debt which they gain from totally also. The real reason that the right exist is by picking interests that they could give a dam about ,as long as they are able to continue the total distribution of wealth to the top.
Your last statement is ridiculous , What American of any party would want all business to be run by the government. Maybe your getting caught up in the word social somehow meaning socialism. There is no tenet of socialism that the democrats support, that my friend is ridiculous. Keep in mind that no one can make their own definition of Communism or socialism , Dem or rep. It already has a definition.

 

[jbander]

The Soviet Union had privately owned businesses. You didn't know that? And you call people goofballs?

I think maybe you should try to read what I wrote, what you are saying means nothing.Read the Thread.

 

[jbander]

Do you agree with "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs"?

absolutely not I'm as capitalist as they come and so are the Dems. But if your suggesting that a safety net is socialism then literally all Governments back to the Roman Empire are Communist, you people are so ridiculous .

 

[ttwtt78640]

absolutely not I'm as capitalist as they come and so are the Dems. But if your suggesting that a safety net is socialism then literally all Governments back to the Roman Empire are Communist, you people are so ridiculous .

Income/wealth redistribution programs are not Socialist, but can be taken too far thus skewing the cost (value?) of labor downward. If a person requires $X/month in order to meet their living expenses they tend not to care how much of that $X comes from their meager paycheck and how much is added to it (or made unnecessary) by "safety net" programs.

 

[Good4Nothin]

absolutely not I'm as capitalist as they come and so are the Dems. But if your suggesting that a safety net is socialism then literally all Governments back to the Roman Empire are Communist, you people are so ridiculous .

Yes I agree. Most governments throughout history have been some kind of balance between safety and freedom. And that is just as true today, although we have a lot more freedom and rights now. But peasants and serfs were protected and provided for, to some extent, by the aristocrats.

Every successful advanced nation today is basically capitalist, with safety nets. Why are people arguing about capitalism vs socialism anymore? The debate is over. It's just a question of how much freedom vs how much protection. We don't want to go back to being serfs, but we also don't want to go without food or healthcare.

 

[apdst]

absolutely not I'm as capitalist as they come and so are the Dems. But if your suggesting that a safety net is socialism then literally all Governments back to the Roman Empire are Communist, you people are so ridiculous .

You support all the communust policies that the Democrats come up with.

If you're saying social security is a safety net, you're wrong. It's wealth redistribution.

 

[truthatallcost]

You don't get your own definition of socialism and Communism, they already have a definition. The right does the same exact thing with the second amendment , each and every one of them have their own definition of the second amendment. There are just a short list of the main tenets of socialism and communism , but this one" the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the Government" has to exist for there to be socialism or communism, that's just a fact. When was the last time someone came up to you and said "you know I think it would be a good idea if all business was owned and run by the government and that they also should be the only one charged with the sale of that production. No one gets there own definition of socialism and communism . Only the hate group they call a party think that everyone of them can have their own definition, so they can use it the way they want to. Like being made idiots by throwing the commie around every corner at the progressives,

I never said that the American left are communists, I said that some elements of communism infect the left on a largely subconscious level even today. You've probably read the Communist Manifesto, which was and is the premier source of communist ideas. Government owning and controlling every aspect of commerce is perhaps the only part of the Manifesto that isn't actively embraced today by a significant portion of the left. And that's only because most people are well informed of the disastrous results that accompany a society where government runs business. The abject failure of communism to offer a better economic system then capitalism is well known.

- viewing history primarily from the relationship between oppressors and the oppressed: this has been embraced by the left, and it's taught on every college campus save for a few.

- identity based collectivism, which focuses on hatred of a group of people based upon their identity, & dehumanizing rhetoric used aggressively against that 'enemy'. This tactic was used by the Soviets to create ethnic genocide against Ukraine, as well as others.

- obsession with unrealistic goals for equality, which ultimately sabotage the greater health of society.

There's more, but I get the feeling you're not going to distinguish my point from your initial OP's singular focus upon the communist economic model.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes I agree. Most governments throughout history have been some kind of balance between safety and freedom. And that is just as true today, although we have a lot more freedom and rights now. But peasants and serfs were protected and provided for, to some extent, by the aristocrats.

Every successful advanced nation today is basically capitalist, with safety nets. Why are people arguing about capitalism vs socialism anymore? The debate is over. It's just a question of how much freedom vs how much protection. We don't want to go back to being serfs, but we also don't want to go without food or healthcare.

Or being able to afford rent. Rent is too damn high. (which is why I own).

 

[soylentgreen]

Its defined in all manners all meaning the same thing , the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole, -the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the workers- the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. Try harder ace. I had to come back there is one more definition all meaning the exact same thing The 4th one is "the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state" we can't forget that one

Why is it that i am always confronted by someone who imagines that thinking up really stupid ways of doing communism is a clever way of saying communism is stupid.

Do you not see the simplistic stupidity in saying that the working class should just swap their slavery from an elite class of wealthy capitalist to that of an elite ruling class of government. ?
The government that is spoken of and that you are desperate to quote mine by not speaking of it is a government of the working class themselves.
What you refer to is a special condition that marx has stated as a classless society. And apparently you are of the belief that this state will magically appear fully formed.

You are nothing more than another who cannot tell the difference between religion and philosophy by your attempt to demand that these words must be taken as gospel rather than thought through and applied to present conditions.
We do not live in a classless society, a classless society will not magically appear.

Your words reflect only a belief by marx held by the fact that he lived in a society where only by destroying the then present absolute power of the upper classes could workers finally gain control. Those conditions no longer exist so then nor does the need to for the state to own anything.

This is a philosophy we are discussing not a religion. Next time you quote marx try to put some actual thinking in to what was said instead of pretending that mindless devotion to the words is all that is needed.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

But the OP doesn't seem to understand that many or most leftists sympathize with socialism.

Good4Nothin seems to think many or most leftists sympathize with socialism.
That is not the same as the facts on the ground, but it is difficult to break through the decades of hidebound ignorance and put a stop to the continuous stream of RED BAITING practiced by low information people like that.

They engage in attention-seeking behavior like RED BAITING when they don't have a valid point to make.

 

[Guno]

We will keep this simple for obvious reasons. There is no communism or socialism in the democratic party or anywhere in this country , never met one in my lifetime... Every single right wing wacko has their own personal definition of socialism and communism, You don't get to define it for you personal hatred, there is already a definition for both of them .

There is one Tenet that is the prime controlling factor in both Communism and socialism. Without which there is no socialism or communism. I have one simple question for you (I promised to keep this simple) when was the last time anyone has ever come up to you in this country and said "you know I think it would be a good idea that all businesses should be owned and run by the government. "

You goofballs throw the Socialism/communism stupidity around all the time but you have no clue what your talking about ever. The prime tenet of socialism/communism is The means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. , without that there is zero communism or socialism and we can go one further step then that .Go to the real definition of communism or socialism in the encyclopedia and take all the main tenets of socialism/communism. , bring them back and with them show us where and who and why you think any aspect of the main tenets of Socialism/communism is ever supported in this country other then by a trickle of people and not as you have it by being half this countries population. This Commie behind every corner routine is a idiots comment.

 

[truthatallcost]

Good4Nothin seems to think many or most leftists sympathize with socialism.
That is not the same as the facts on the ground, but it is difficult to break through the decades of hidebound ignorance and put a stop to the continuous stream of RED BAITING practiced by low information people like that.

They engage in attention-seeking behavior like RED BAITING when they don't have a valid point to make.

In the 30's-40's, the left sympathized with communism.

In the 60's- 80's, they fantasized about socialism.

Given the failures of the above mentioned ideologies, now the left side of the spectrum advocates for the country to move towards Democratic Socialism, looking to European countries like Norway and Sweden for inspiration. Perhaps this too is being abandoned, as liberals and progressives are finally being tasked with answering questions pertaining to the feasibility of patterning a country closing in on 350 million people after two small Nordic states with a combined total of about 20 million inhabitants.

 

[Drawdown]

We will keep this simple for obvious reasons. There is no communism or socialism in the democratic party or anywhere in this country , never met one in my lifetime... Every single right wing wacko has their own personal definition of socialism and communism, You don't get to define it for you personal hatred, there is already a definition for both of them .

There is one Tenet that is the prime controlling factor in both Communism and socialism. Without which there is no socialism or communism. I have one simple question for you (I promised to keep this simple) when was the last time anyone has ever come up to you in this country and said "you know I think it would be a good idea that all businesses should be owned and run by the government. "

You goofballs throw the Socialism/communism stupidity around all the time but you have no clue what your talking about ever. The prime tenet of socialism/communism is The means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government. , without that there is zero communism or socialism and we can go one further step then that .Go to the real definition of communism or socialism in the encyclopedia and take all the main tenets of socialism/communism. , bring them back and with them show us where and who and why you think any aspect of the main tenets of Socialism/communism is ever supported in this country other then by a trickle of people and not as you have it by being half this countries population. This Commie behind every corner routine is a idiots comment.

The commies are too busy trying to help Trump get re-elected to be worrying about taking over businesses....or so the very liberal people would want us to believe.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

In the 30's-40's, the left sympathized with communism.

In the 60's- 80's, they fantasized about socialism.

Given the failures of the above mentioned ideologies, now the left side of the spectrum advocates for the country to move towards Democratic Socialism, looking to European countries like Norway and Sweden for inspiration. Perhaps this too is being abandoned, as liberals and progressives are finally being tasked with answering questions pertaining to the feasibility of patterning a country closing in on 350 million people after two small Nordic states with a combined total of about 20 million inhabitants.

You seem to ignore what the will of the people was from around the 1930's to 1980.
Yes, of course in the 30's and 40's some experimented with communism. Capitalism had failed them, it had utterly failed them despite the fact that they played by the rules and worked as hard as they could. The average working stiff got shafted and it caused a massive crisis of conscience.

In the 60's, again some people experimented with socialism, but the overwhelming success of a generation wasn't socialism, it was The New Deal, and the success of what veteran journalist Mike Wallace described in 1959 as "our modified, regulated capitalist system."
He was interviewing a mediocre author and master malcontent whose sloppily penned fever dreams have captured the imaginations of a global cult, and the average working family knows little of her and couldn't care less.
What they do know is, their purchasing power and quality of life isn't but a fraction of what their 1950's counterparts enjoyed, and most of them are young enough that the Ayn Rand economy of THIS last forty years is all they know, and they know it sucks for everyone except the wealthiest.

Mike Wallace was interviewing Ayn Rand when he made that quote.

What people on the Left want is what my generation was blessed with, the last decades of The New Deal economy, and we want more of the social justice of the Sixties, more equality among races and cultures, equality among the sexes, better working conditions and better public services. We want clean air and water, and we want affordable healthcare for all.
And we want every single child to have access to the best education available, including higher education if their merits indicate it's worth it.

You guys don't seem very good at selling what you want, and all you can do is running around calling us communists and commie sympathizers. Then you pull out the Obama card and the Hillary card, then you play whataboutism and tu quoque, then you dodge and deflect, then you move the goalposts, then you play historical revisionism games, then you go back to red-baiting again.

Yawn. Hey what happened to that healthcare plan? Whatever happened to Mexico paying for that wall? Whatever happened to North Korea? And why the hot holy Hell blue **** did we take a giant crap on the Kurds?
You guys are out of ideas and out of excuses.
And we're about to take a giant crap on a crook and get rid of him...he's done more than enough damage.

 

[truthatallcost]

You seem to ignore what the will of the people was from around the 1930's to 1980.
Yes, of course in the 30's and 40's some experimented with communism. Capitalism had failed them, it had utterly failed them despite the fact that they played by the rules and worked as hard as they could. The average working stiff got shafted and it caused a massive crisis of conscience.

In the 60's, again some people experimented with socialism, but the overwhelming success of a generation wasn't socialism, it was The New Deal, and the success of what veteran journalist Mike Wallace described in 1959 as "our modified, regulated capitalist system."
He was interviewing a mediocre author and master malcontent whose sloppily penned fever dreams have captured the imaginations of a global cult, and the average working family knows little of her and couldn't care less.
What they do know is, their purchasing power and quality of life isn't but a fraction of what their 1950's counterparts enjoyed, and most of them are young enough that the Ayn Rand economy of THIS last forty years is all they know, and they know it sucks for everyone except the wealthiest.

Mike Wallace was interviewing Ayn Rand when he made that quote.

I completely agreed with the first half of your comment. Ayn Rand herself couldn't live up to her own ideals (overspent her resources, ended up relying upon government assistance) yet lacked the ability to admit that she had been wrong. Rugged individualism works when someone is young and healthy, not so much when they're older and need help. I don't favor eliminating programs such as social security, in fact I wish it were expanded. My mom turned 67 this year, has worked since she was 18 (minus maternity leave) and can't retire. She doesn't receive any government assisstance. Meanwhile the richest 1% are exponentially wealthier than they were 50 years ago, and horde their finances like they're preparing for the apocalypse.

 

[truthatallcost]

What people on the Left want is what my generation was blessed with, the last decades of The New Deal economy, and we want more of the social justice of the Sixties, more equality among races and cultures, equality among the sexes, better working conditions and better public services. We want clean air and water, and we want affordable healthcare for all.

Then you must reverse the overall condition of the USA to more closely resemble the 1960's-

- 120 million less people
- 90% of goods sold in the USA which are manufactured here
- higher taxes on the wealthy
- less diversity, thus less divisiveness when it comes to race, class, etc
- affordable college for all, as was the case in the late 60's
- providing doctors with a workload that is 1/10 the size that most doctors today deal with
- a moratorium on new real estate development which eats up land and natural resources, regulating the top polluting companies out of existence, 120 million less people would mean 120 million less drivers, 120 million less people consuming food, the growing and production of which adds pollution through agricultural processes.

The 1960's are gone forever. I didn't get to live through them, my generation grew up during the 90's & 2000's, the grunge era and gangsta rap.

And we want every single child to have access to the best education available, including higher education if their merits indicate it's worth it.

You guys don't seem very good at selling what you want, and all you can do is running around calling us communists and commie sympathizers. Then you pull out the Obama card and the Hillary card, then you play whataboutism and tu quoque, then you dodge and deflect, then you move the goalposts, then you play historical revisionism games, then you go back to red-baiting again.

Sure Check, but the Lefts deliberate misuse of the word 'Nazi' has been far more effective. Case in point; the media not so cleverly hinted that Jordan Peterson was a Nazi, or at least a fascist. In today's world, a mild mannered Canadian psychologist and lecturer, and a card carrying Klan member from the most backwards Appalachian town are one and the same to many folks on the left.

Yawn. Hey what happened to that healthcare plan? Whatever happened to Mexico paying for that wall? Whatever happened to North Korea? And why the hot holy Hell blue **** did we take a giant crap on the Kurds?
You guys are out of ideas and out of excuses.
And we're about to take a giant crap on a crook and get rid of him...he's done more than enough damage.

Right, and Joe Biden is the man who is going to lead you to victory, if he can just manage to string a coherent sentence together and keep his nose away from the underage girls in his presence. I'll give you one compliment Check- you have a very active mental capacity for fantasy.

 

[vanceen]

I disagree with the OP on almost everything, but I do agree that the right has a habit of screaming "Socialism!" when presented with any idea that is not pure laissez faire capitalism.

It's as bad as the left screaming "Racism!" over everything under the sun.

No wonder we can't get anything done.